Money, therefore, arose out of liability: farmers valued coins because they had a nondiscretionary liability that could only be settled with those coins (their taxes). People who weren’t farmers would also accept coins, because they knew that the farmers needed them, and since they needed to trade with farmers, anything the farmers would accept was therefore valuable to all.
Over and over in history, we see examples of money emerging through the need to settle a nondiscretionary liability.
The idea that money comes from liabilities was popularized by Warren Mosler, the progenitor of Modern Monetary Theory. In Mosler’s lectures, he illustrates the point by asking, “Who will stay after the lecture to stack chairs and mop the floor, in exchange for one of my business-cards?” When no one raises their hand, he adds, “What if I told you that there was an armed guard at the door and if you don’t give him a business-card, he won’t let you leave?” Of course, every hand shoots up.
I don’t think that’s necessarily what that is saying, interesting quote though.
I would argue that money can be basically anything we decide to agree upon as a form of intermediary for goods or services (as opposed to a bartering type of system).
Additionally, governments rise and fall all the time, sometimes they handle monetary/fiscal responsibility well, and sometimes they don’t.
I’m not an anarchist by any means so I’m not advocating for lack of government (in fact I’d very likely be considered a communist to most).
If tomorrow the USA IRS said it would accept tax payments via Bitcoin/Eth/Whatever, would that automatically mean that it is in fact money now in your opinion?
And in that setting, it’s less about the mechanics of measuring the value of individual items and more about balancing the number of favors owed to/from each member of the community. The magnitude of those favors definitely scale according to the material value of the items flowing through the favors – but it’s a secondary, not primary, concern.
It’s true that money can be anything we decide to agree upon, but it’s not as a stand-in for valuable goods. It’s as a stand-in for “credit against my debt of favors owed”.
Is that what constitutes currency for you, if a country accepts paying taxes in that form?
Y… yeah? Pretty much, yeah.
https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/16/nondiscretionary-liabilities/
I don’t think that’s necessarily what that is saying, interesting quote though.
I would argue that money can be basically anything we decide to agree upon as a form of intermediary for goods or services (as opposed to a bartering type of system).
Additionally, governments rise and fall all the time, sometimes they handle monetary/fiscal responsibility well, and sometimes they don’t.
I’m not an anarchist by any means so I’m not advocating for lack of government (in fact I’d very likely be considered a communist to most).
If tomorrow the USA IRS said it would accept tax payments via Bitcoin/Eth/Whatever, would that automatically mean that it is in fact money now in your opinion?
I think the key thing here is the myth that money was invented to optimize an unwieldy barter economy. Money isn’t actually a tool for ad hoc person-to-person trade, but for trade among members of a community.
And in that setting, it’s less about the mechanics of measuring the value of individual items and more about balancing the number of favors owed to/from each member of the community. The magnitude of those favors definitely scale according to the material value of the items flowing through the favors – but it’s a secondary, not primary, concern.
It’s true that money can be anything we decide to agree upon, but it’s not as a stand-in for valuable goods. It’s as a stand-in for “credit against my debt of favors owed”.
I’ll have to take some time to read and digest this, but you didn’t answer my direct question :p